| Username |
Post |
| the real ashu |
Posted
on 25-Jul-01 12:13 AM
Suman Pradhan of The Kathmandu Post wrote:
The Post has decided not make the action [taken against the
plagiarist] public. Period.
************
Suman-ji,
I understand what you are saying. And you well know that
no one here wants to permanently ruin the career of the journalist in question.
But when faced with evidence against one of your journalists,
a STRAIGHTFORWARD PUBLIC STATEMENT saying something like "hey,
one of our staff members goofed up big time; we are sorry, and
we do not tolerate plagiarism and we will do our best not to let this sort of thing happen in the future" would have been sufficient:
a) to PUBLICLY show that you care about readers' feedbacks.
b) to PUBLICLY care about the reputation of the newspaper.
c) to PUBLICLY restore readers' faith in the newspaper.
For the newspaper, there is no GREATER GOD than readers
who trust you even when you publicly admit having made
some mistakes and expressed genuine regrets.
And so, pressed to the point, it's not the act of plagiarism
that bothers even TKP supporters like me that much, though I,
for one, would never tolerate plagiarism.
It's the refusal of your institution to take a clear public
stand against it by issuing a statement, especially when
the basis of ANYTHING that you do is PUBLIC TRUST and
PUBLIC TRUST alone.
People, and Nepalis especially, are amazingly forgiving
provided they see a sense of genuine regret in public.
After all, we all make mistakes. How we handle those mistakes
is more important.
********************
Suman Pradhan wrote:
It was a grave offense and the reporter admitted as such. But we editors were also at fault in that case since never in our eight year history have we educated our reporters/editors about the sins of plagiarism (admittedly a big failing on our part.) After that case though, we have made it a point to educate all our staff what plagiarism is and how the paper intends to deal with it in the future.
*******************
Suman-ji,
Again, I understand what you are saying, but, using the
logical framework of your argument, even Girija could
defend Chataut. You are much smarter than to be using
this argument.
See below: SUPPOSE Girija too had said:
"It was a grave offense and the [Minister Chataut] admitted as such. But [I, the Prime Minister, am] also at fault in that case since never in our [10] year history have we educated our [Ministers] about the sins of [corruption]-- admittedly a big failing on our part. After that [Lauda] case though, we have made it a point to educate all our [Ministers] what [corruption] is and how the [PM's office] intends to deal with it in the future."
See what I mean?
Would/Should Kantipur/TKP let Girija get away with such an explanation?
I have far too much respect for Kantipur/TKP to doubt it. And PM's position too is based on PUBLIC TRUST and PUBLIC TRUST
alone.
************************
Suman Pradhan wrote:
As for your other question, I am surprised this should come from you Ashu. You are among the very few on this site who understands how how the media business operates in general and Kantipur Publications functions in particular. And still ...
**************
Suman-ji,
Look, I have enormous personal respect for you.
Let me make that very clear.
That said, you and I both may well know how the media
business works in Nepal, but we also know that not all
is well with Nepal's media, though the media has an
enormous potential to do much good in Nepal.
And one way to bring about -- slowly and surely -- positive changes in the media is to start discussing things OPENLY
with one another, as we do on this Web site, with a healthy respect for one another's differeing views. Viewed this way, I see discussions like these very useful to push for reforms
within the media sector.
After all, in Nepal, if the media covers the rest of the
society, then who covers the media, if not independent
citizens such as visitors to this GBNC Web site? Again,
I see these open discussions as a positive step.
**********************
Suman Pradhan wrote:
But taking your argument a notch further, I would like to ask, should the New York Times be held responsible for content published by the Boston Globe?
*******
Suman-ji,
Yes.
When Mike Barnicle, one of Boston Globe's most celebrated columnists, was found to have committed plagiarism in ONE
of his columns, the Globe, with NYT's nod, FIRED him.
It did not matter that Barnicle had written 1000s of columns
before for the Globe WITHOUT committing any act of plagiarism.
For evidence, check out:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/06/bosglobe.barnicle.01/
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/98/08/20/MIKE_BARNICLE_STEALS.html
http://www.salon.com/media/1998/08/20media.html
********************
oohi
ashu
|
| suman pradhan |
Posted
on 25-Jul-01 10:11 AM
Ashu wrote:
"But when faced with evidence against one of your journalists,
a STRAIGHTFORWARD PUBLIC STATEMENT saying something like "hey,
one of our staff members goofed up big time; we are sorry, and
we do not tolerate plagiarism and we will do our best not to let this sort of thing happen in the future" would have been sufficient."
But Ashu, don't you think I did exactly that in our initial discussion on plagiarism? You can refer back to the previous postings on plagiarism and see for yourself. I remember saying we are sorry, we are investigating and we will certainly take action.
Ashu also wrote:
"a) to PUBLICLY show that you care about readers' feedbacks.
b) to PUBLICLY care about the reputation of the newspaper.
c) to PUBLICLY restore readers' faith in the newspaper."
Yes Ashu, for these very reasons I visited this site and said what I said back then. We understand that the public trust once breached takes a long time to recover. But it seems you were expecting a press statement.
Ashu further wrote:
"Suman-ji,
Again, I understand what you are saying, but, using the
logical framework of your argument, even Girija could
defend Chataut. You are much smarter than to be using
this argument.
See below: SUPPOSE Girija too had said:
"It was a grave offense and the [Minister Chataut] admitted as such. But [I, the Prime Minister, am] also at fault in that case since never in our [10] year history have we educated our [Ministers] about the sins of [corruption]-- admittedly a big failing on our part. After that [Lauda] case though, we have made it a point to educate all our [Ministers] what [corruption] is and how the [PM's office] intends to deal with it in the future."
See what I mean?"
Of course I see what you mean. But your analogy doesn't quite fit because Mr Koirala (and Mr Chataut too) had made repeated claims about controlling corruption so his minister should have gotten the message. On our part, as I mentioned, we never made any claims nor did we ever tell our novice/experienced journalists about the sins of plagiarism until this case. You may not like it, but there is always a first time for everything and try as you might to take the ultimate action, you may not be equipped to justify it on legal grounds. I hope you get the message. But if offenses pile up and if potential sins have been pointed out in advance, then there's no stopping the ultimate action. This is only natural justice.
Ashu also wrote:
"Suman-ji,
Yes.
When Mike Barnicle, one of Boston Globe's most celebrated columnists, was found to have committed plagiarism in ONE
of his columns, the Globe, with NYT's nod, FIRED him.
It did not matter that Barnicle had written 1000s of columns
before for the Globe WITHOUT committing any act of plagiarism."
Ashu,
You might have confused NYT newspaper with the Publishing Company. Both are named the same. I am not sure about this fact - and I ask your forgiveness if I'm wrong here - but I think it was the NYT Company, and not the paper, that gave the nod in the Barnicle case.
Now I would like to point out something disconcerting on this site. There are some people - not you Ashu - on this site who seem to be baying for blood of the plagiarist. they want him to go at any cost. no problem with that, but fellas please do not make it personal. Otherwise the intellectual stimulation this site generates may not last long. Let me assure you that no one is POWERFUL or PROTECTED enough at the Post, including me, that he/she can't be forced out. But labour laws here being what it is, you need perfect grounds to do that. The first offense, admittedely a grave one, is still the first offense. If you cease to believe in the redeeming quality of humans, then I suggest you ask yourself how many times you have made mistakes and learnt from them.
cheers
suman
|
| Referee |
Posted
on 25-Jul-01 01:02 PM
All this "You said, I said.... then I said, then you said.... I also said, but you said..." is getting really annoying. Keep your arguments brief without copying and pasting huge paragraphs from your opponent's posting. Funny thing is both of you (Ashutosh and Suman) are in Kathmandu. Why don't the two of you just meet at Nanglo and sort out your differences over coffee? Then each of you could post a brief summary of your conclusions here.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-Jul-01 02:35 PM
namaste,
an interesting argument. I think both of you guys can start some sort of training sessions to journalists in which you explain to them the cons of plarizing. I honestly think that TKP should take strong actions against its journalists found plagarizing. I also liked the idea of two of you guys meeting over a pitcher of Guiness at nanglo (or a cup of coffee
Trailokya
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 26-Jul-01 12:06 AM
Hi Suman-ji,
Thanks for your comments.
I agree that journalists too are human beings, and they, too,
need chances to redeem themselves.
My only point, like Biswo's was: A straightforward public admission can ONLY add to the reputation of The Kathmandu Post, send everyone else a clear signal against plagiarism, and CLOSE this particular issue forever.
Else, as a supporter of TKP, I worry that without a 'proper public closure' of this thing, it will sort of linger on in people's minds. And the only thing they might remember may be that the offender(s) sort of got away . . .
Perhaps you disagree with this worry, and, I guess, that's
fine. I am not going to press further on this.
And it's good to learn that you are already taking steps to
teach your younger colleagues about plagiarism.
Also, you may be right to sense that there are people who are baying for that particular journalist's blood. But, unfortunately, as you well know that one price of being 'famous'
(in whatever way and in whatever contexts) is that one's every
mistake is magnified for public consumption.
TKP is a famous newspaper, and it has to guard its reputation
zealously.
That said, when I said, NYT earlier, I did mean the New York
Times Publications. As the owner of BG, NYTP is ultimately
responsible for all that appears in BG.
Finally, to the poster called 'referee', if you find
this whole exchange of views "annoying", well, tough
luck.
You have every right NOT to read any of these "annoying"
postings.
Meantime, ket us reapect the rights of all those who see
OPEN and mutually respectful discussions using real
names as the last best hope to educate/inform each other
and help make our various private/public institutions
better.
oohi
ashu
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 26-Jul-01 12:06 AM
Hi Suman-ji,
Thanks for your comments.
I agree that journalists too are human beings, and they, too,
need chances to redeem themselves.
My only point, like Biswo's was: A straightforward public admission can ONLY add to the reputation of The Kathmandu Post, send everyone else a clear signal against plagiarism, and CLOSE this particular issue forever.
Else, as a supporter of TKP, I worry that without a 'proper public closure' of this thing, it will sort of linger on in people's minds. And the only thing they might remember may be that the offender(s) sort of got away . . .
Perhaps you disagree with this worry, and, I guess, that's
fine. I am not going to press further on this.
And it's good to learn that you are already taking steps to
teach your younger colleagues about plagiarism.
Also, you may be right to sense that there are people who are baying for that particular journalist's blood. But, unfortunately, as you well know that one price of being 'famous'
(in whatever way and in whatever contexts) is that one's every
mistake is magnified for public consumption.
TKP is a famous newspaper, and it has to guard its reputation
zealously.
That said, when I said, NYT earlier, I did mean the New York
Times Publications. As the owner of BG, NYTP is ultimately
responsible for all that appears in BG.
Finally, to the poster called 'referee', if you find
this whole exchange of views "annoying", well, tough
luck.
You have every right NOT to read any of these "annoying"
postings.
Meantime, ket us reapect the rights of all those who see
OPEN and mutually respectful discussions using real
names as the last best hope to educate/inform each other
and help make our various private/public institutions
better.
oohi
ashu
|
